Another Sign of the Times...*SMH*

[LaylaMonroe]

Disgusting.  I appreciate these stories being posted, because in spite of how difficult it is to read about this stuff daily, I'd rather face what's going on in the world than be oblivious to the fact that it's happening. 

Me too, Nessa.  Me too.

[sjonathan02]

Disgusting.  I appreciate these stories being posted, because in spite of how difficult it is to read about this stuff daily, I'd rather face what's going on in the world than be oblivious to the fact that it's happening. 

I don't think one can equate one with the other. Meaning, just because one doesn't read EVERY SINGLE horrific story in the news means they have their head in the sand about the ills of society. 


In addition, If one continues to keep focusing or finding all of this deplorable mess, in the news, one may begin to believe that there's nothing that can be done.


Bottom line, I agree that there should be some type of disclaimer attached to these types of posts and allow folks to choose.

BTJM.

[LaylaMonroe]

I don't think one can equate one with the other. Meaning, just because one doesn't read EVERY SINGLE horrific story in the news means they have their head in the sand about the ills of society. 


In addition, If one continues to keep focusing or finding all of this deplorable mess, in the news, one may begin to believe that there's nothing that can be done.


Bottom line, I agree that there should be some type of disclaimer attached to these types of posts and allow folks to choose.

BTJM.

I can't agree with the first part.  But, as for the part in bold, of course I agree that might be a good idea (as stated earlier).  But, wouldn't that be rather difficult to regulate?  What about the newbies or even regulars who "didn't get the memo"?

Maybe we should just avoid clicking links until we can use context clues from other posters to ascertain what the link will be about?  For those of us who prefer to avoid upsetting news, I mean...

Using this thread as an example, after a few posts, it was clear that this article was sad news.  After a few more, it became even clearer what the article was about.  So, folks really didn't have to click it in order to know what it was about, at that point.  Maybe the folks who are more sensitive to bad news should just wait a little bit before clicking. 

[sjonathan02]

I can't agree with the first part.  But, as for the part in bold, of course I agree that might be a good idea (as stated earlier).  But, wouldn't that be rather difficult to regulate?  What about the newbies or even regulars who "didn't get the memo"?

Maybe we should just avoid clicking links until we can use context clues from other posters to ascertain what the link will be about?  For those of us who prefer to avoid upsetting news, I mean...

Using this thread as an example, after a few posts, it was clear that this article was sad news.  After a few more, it became even clearer what the article was about.  So, folks really didn't have to click it in order to know what it was about, at that point.  Maybe the folks who are more sensitive to bad news should just wait a little bit before clicking. 

What 'memo'? In your thread title, you could either just say what the link is about or simply type, "Bad news" or something to that effect.

This way folks can decide if they even want to enter the thread in the first place.

Either way, it's merely a suggestion.

[LaylaMonroe]

What 'memo'? In your thread title, you could either just say what the link is about or simply type, "Bad news" or something to that effect.

This way folks can decide if they even want to enter the thread in the first place.

Either way, it's merely a suggestion.
[/quote

I think it's a good suggestion.

What I meant was what about the thread-starters who didn't read the request or suggestion to advise unsuspecting readers of sad/bad news... they'll still post without the warning, and there'll still be folks who click because they didn't know it was bad/sad news...  "didn't get the memo" was a figure of speech gone wrong... LOL

[cordney]

Does anyone know of a way to transmit gonorrhea without intercourse?  Just curious to know how that might be done...

Another way is through birth...if the mother has it, she can pass it on to her lil one

[LaylaMonroe]

Another way is through birth...if the mother has it, she can pass it on to her lil one

Yeah, I knew that one... but, thanks. 

[nessalynn77]

I can't agree with the first part.  But, as for the part in bold, of course I agree that might be a good idea (as stated earlier).  But, wouldn't that be rather difficult to regulate?  What about the newbies or even regulars who "didn't get the memo"?

Maybe we should just avoid clicking links until we can use context clues from other posters to ascertain what the link will be about?  For those of us who prefer to avoid upsetting news, I mean...

Using this thread as an example, after a few posts, it was clear that this article was sad news.  After a few more, it became even clearer what the article was about.  So, folks really didn't have to click it in order to know what it was about, at that point.  Maybe the folks who are more sensitive to bad news should just wait a little bit before clicking. 

I use this all the time.  Whether or not I will read a thread depends first on the title... if it's ambiguous and I don't have a lot of time, I'll skip it all together.  LGM is pretty vast, and if I only have a few minutes, I have to filter out possible time-wasters, lol.  I also consider the poster and their reputation for the type of stuff they post.  If I'm generally not interested, I'll normally skip those, too, lol.

Once I get into a thread and there's a link, all vids are automatically out, if I'm at work, but other than that, I use other responses as a rule of thumb as to whether or not I want to read it.  

[LaylaMonroe]

I use this all the time.  Whether or not I will read a thread depends first on the title... if it's ambiguous and I don't have a lot of time, I'll skip it all together.  LGM is pretty vast, and if I only have a few minutes, I have to filter out possible time-wasters, lol.  I also consider the poster and their reputation for the type of stuff they post.  If I'm generally not interested, I'll normally skip those, too, lol.

Once I get into a thread and there's a link, all vids are automatically out, if I'm at work, but other than that, I use other responses as a rule of thumb as to whether or not I want to read it.  

Ditto.

For some reason, I'm just not interested in seeing a bunch of YouTube videos.... I think it has something to do with my attention span (or lack thereof).  So, as a rule of thumb, I just don't click on the YouTube links.  BUT.... every now and again, the context or somebody else's comments in the thread will make me curious, so I'll click on it... but never without some sort of idea of what it's about.

And like you said, I'll also rely on the reputation (or more accurately, my perception) of the poster.

[csedwards2]

How bout we think on the good and lovely and perfect though?

[LaylaMonroe]

How bout we think on the good and lovely and perfect though?

We still gotta be sober and vigilant, though... lol.

Naw seriously, CSE, reading an article like this doesn't hinder ME from thinking on the good and lovely and perfect and those things that are of good report.  I hate to say it... maybe I'm just desensitized to some things... but, the truth is, I read it, I shake my head, and maybe throw in a "Lawwwwwd hammercy," and I move on to the next article.  BTJM.

I'll still say that those of us who don't like reading stuff like this don't HAVE to... nobody's tying you down.  Now SJ really didn't have the benefit of reading a bunch of comments to get a clue as to what the article was about, but you did.    You didn't have to read it... 

[csedwards2]

We still gotta be sober and vigilant, though... lol.

Naw seriously, CSE, reading an article like this doesn't hinder ME from thinking on the good and lovely and perfect and those things that are of good report.  I hate to say it... maybe I'm just desensitized to some things... but, the truth is, I read it, I shake my head, and maybe throw in a "Lawwwwwd hammercy," and I move on to the next article.  BTJM.

I'll still say that those of us who don't like reading stuff like this don't HAVE to... nobody's tying you down.  Now SJ really didn't have the benefit of reading a bunch of comments to get a clue as to what the article was about, but you did.    You didn't have to read it... 

It might just be me, but any time I open a thread on a gospel website, I expect it to be reasonably positive. When I open one to find its negative, I feel duped.

[LaylaMonroe]

It might just be me, but any time I open a thread on a gospel website, I expect it to be reasonably positive. When I open one to find its negative, I feel duped.

Naw, it probably ain't just you. 

But until 4HG makes a rule saying that we can't post news items that aren't considered "positive,"  the best thing to do is to just not click on the link.   

[csedwards2]

Naw, it probably ain't just you. 

But until 4HG makes a rule saying that we can't post news items that aren't considered "positive,"  the best thing to do is to just not click on the link.   

will do. I dont even visit "rants"

[Steely]

I don't think one can equate one with the other. Meaning, just because one doesn't read EVERY SINGLE horrific story in the news means they have their head in the sand about the ills of society. 


In addition, If one continues to keep focusing or finding all of this deplorable mess, in the news, one may begin to believe that there's nothing that can be done.


Bottom line, I agree that there should be some type of disclaimer attached to these types of posts and allow folks to choose.

BTJM.

Point taken and noted. A disclaimer should have been attached.

[LaylaMonroe]

Point taken and noted. A disclaimer should have been attached.

Too little, too late, buddy.  Go saddown in the corner and think about all this havoc you done wreaked!!!! 

 

[sjonathan02]

It might just be me, but any time I open a thread on a gospel website, I expect it to be reasonably positive. When I open one to find its negative, I feel duped.

Or, at the very least, there should be more of a balance between the good and bad news that's posted. Lately, it's been nothing but negative on just about every subject under the Sun. 

[sjonathan02]

Point taken and noted. A disclaimer should have been attached.

Come let us reason together. Good show, ol' chap.  I KNEW there was a reason I get down wit' cats from da NYC despite their love of the blasted Giants.

[under13]

Naw, it probably ain't just you. 

But until 4HG makes a rule saying that we can't post news items that aren't considered "positive,"   the best thing to do is to just not click on the link.   

Thats the problem with a lot of churches, they only wanna speak on the positive or Happy 'milk and honey' subjects. Some things that may be considered negative, need to be disscused, Even if we are uncomfortable talking about them. Doing so may help some of the members of this site.
Now hearing about 4 year olds getting the claps?  I think thats pushing the limit. How is that gonna help any of us in life? If wanna hear stories like that I can go to CNN or Fox news.

But I cant really talk, cuz some of my topics are 'out there'

[sjonathan02]

Thats the problem with a lot of churches, they only wanna speak on the positive or Happy 'milk and honey' subjects. Some things that may be considered negative, need to be disscused, Even if we are uncomfortable talking about them. Doing so may help some of the members of this site.
Now hearing about 4 year olds getting the claps?  I think thats pushing the limit. How is that gonna help any of us in life? If wanna hear stories like that I can go to CNN or Fox news.

But I cant really talk, cuz some of my topics are 'out there'

*sniccer* He said, "some" *sniccer*